Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-raw-architecture-25
review-ietf-raw-architecture-25-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2025-06-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-raw-architecture
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 27)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-06-24
Requested 2025-06-13
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Pascal Thubert
I-D last updated 2025-07-10 (Latest revision 2025-07-07)
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -21 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -25 by Behcet Sarikaya (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -25 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -25 by Rich Salz (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -25 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -25 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -25 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Giuseppe Fioccola
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-raw-architecture by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/baL8l6dn_qCLcwPyQbw27krkwaw
Reviewed revision 25 (document currently at 27)
Result Has issues
Completed 2025-06-24
review-ietf-raw-architecture-25-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2025-06-24-00
This document introduces the Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW)
Architecture. It leverages and extends RFC 8655 to adapt to the challenges that
affect the wireless medium. I think that the document is valuable and almost
ready for publication, but I have some comments.

The main issue, from an OPSDIR point of view, is section 2.6 on OAM variations.
Considering the ongoing discussion on draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization,
it might be better to avoid general OAM definitions here. I suggest to consider
RFC 7799 and RFC 9551 for reference and include only the terms useful in the
context of this document. I would simply refer to the definitions of RFC 9551
for In-band OAM and Out-of-band OAM. In addition, I would omit new terms, e.g.
Limited OAM or Upstream OAM, which are not used in the rest of the document
and, if needed, could be taken into account for
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization.

I also found few nits for your consideration:
- Some acronyms in section 2 are well known (e.g. FEC, OAM, SNR, Uplink,
Downlink, Downstream, Upstream,...) and can be simply explained within the
text. - I suggest to move section 3.2 on "The RAW problem" earlier in the
document, perhaps after the Introduction. - Some Figures can be improved since
are not very clear, e.g. Figure 1, Figure 4, Figure 8 and Figure 10.